From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f49.google.com (mail-ej1-f49.google.com [209.85.218.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7165045FFA0 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2026 11:27:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.49 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787311625; cv=none; b=KKuIbtxFeQ2xZzb4WUlvDIeTnkoJo9I2qeQhZL+pn/eo8OMO6fGidFkVWF3Q86aU8SDaUgxVGaw50OrTG56RNgMxdWGGhIDffm+9N573LVvbxsBjBw4uP1PE0oA3hOOg9s34qQonTsN4EpGfCbTkUnz399gLx+gNOmsiTXPfOCc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787311625; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qogB6u7kJAKhvKBq404QR4So3XGU2E5fAYA/1FD3BC8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=C3S4J7bjZssDg7WsJUey4rLoBz4wfmZ+VQbBfTKx0gyj9w0e1QauYVgrReIaDgRwFdifpvdO4DAgLKgawapc8iELa2mzTlwDkCyTqeU0POUQ0217+voclO7G6Yv8ILNvHcwhjfUUHvqKBlit6Ik964nXLOsZFYVUYazY1EBNWcI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=QlpvTVKp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.49 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="QlpvTVKp" Received: by mail-ej1-f49.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-c167aa9500dso139209466b.3 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2026 04:27:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=google; t=1787311619; x=1787916419; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=Y0+Hytv4UMojIA2Hs8fG8+n+8sWIYR+hpSfJmDuymH4=; b=QlpvTVKpmi+zQ3mU6tRNmy8HdwCbB7eA5gohW/pnzwTMikb4FSYL6xcbcnJqU+m6k6 ktklg/uDw6P8P055RECgh6QnfZ/i+UKT4JcGWxZEK1daLBE8bo3/z2ETDoDWMX1nmBa0 ebLHn2PCkQhfBEFbBUPk/XccDooQS4mfrAjPTqVOr6fBEjI/nrQkWWOm0zyV4YbUgUpm 9/445sHhZADenzOU/FN3K+uscHkxolTLfMyEqTG1aPVKiSvuShAbZWyUapxehHrpsOAc tw5zTSWNxRC24OFxidw6xpLgYg2xF+Sxi/A7szNXOS00h8oHuT3W8uXLtdO5vdL6blZ2 YRpA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1787311619; x=1787916419; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=Y0+Hytv4UMojIA2Hs8fG8+n+8sWIYR+hpSfJmDuymH4=; b=Oz71P5FaE90VztqDVLFbv+AaZk6ww2k0TZsLz55GEn9qI0nIxLLqBHd9pL0Z8KjWyK Fbeu+b2ImJOmc+a18kANDIO2kR43RKrVvgyiDrBotW6bGqQRCoBZEhhiTLPcfIQy6uzZ xiDn/9eKHv/79YzMOVvcepw/Mk+SAcO+6DDZu8MIwSld8f/alEVCpftmraUmAMjkrH2R ar65fxWcP2e8cnJat0LZnVsqeTeHODIMpIG8aZWZtYaHQqFD9uTOIb8mMTl0ZYIJmVJc 0bQJizadSMyzMLHbhNH+lxKuIP/t1wss1o2Nj76ZaK8ZF88xoA+BMT6TfcJwf3JAJLNn phag== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AHgh+RpVWj6li4TrdOgL+kPPVIqykyx7VjhHHdrM52bIMnD9qty5VWevAsw3G8P8s+k0QwgNAFSPMxFG4PhWWtk=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++lxXUFF2Y9Bw8ESOKSFMWh17uZ3m0a6QDjG0HFZJ54cjQZgVmjZ RxII5oU0+hLdZZFcSRGqIziCc1MZh9aCYRnMR/YMHssBY011nCqBl/d+8+VNxgQ0/mM= X-Gm-Gg: AR+sD12xV21m0rJ7z02mTiOPFKSYPYvozBcbLIAH9ECO9m2ND2CFxn2wkdLqd5hGmll gwxEPHpBHVp4jM2VnskKPLvIioZ7EpPhyFALytFaEant432V4JnXvelqtLTiCotjkwtBNvzrQXy ylBw8hLX4KwhbgDIs0J1C/ZWX0gGPHxnDVprIPOCVwEMQ55v8PajBCb6zohsCPkaT0QFdPzCtb7 OI/PtamF9sGRmzSrgOMKcJGMwXoCVliOCvtBvk++qJ8kaOzg/mmcCeHNlkJXi/C2AUXeh/q22IZ Lo+J+raSu9YseWyQiCPaosdWbR3SRjP0r+mhHnUZKDyA5TEYWr9ujFLGJHQK3MCof6nZSNyQl5S M4o0T+KSzFKmVjcVmGXeJo9KtUnzThvt4dQ7q/9KxCPlAZ+kebl66Oltxs+BZZdZokyB5rArbT3 ChbLWhTopmk7orzSuXq+RhBwyyJp2OK/krENuyEPYeXDPRo4vVgWwEQ8cjxiGh8Eag/GtSOMKLF ZQiFbNd/Gpx X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:100a:20b0:c16:8799:fcb4 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-c246a6a93fbmr429118866b.19.1787311619449; Fri, 21 Aug 2026 04:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (109-81-81-112.rct.o2.cz. [109.81.81.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a640c23a62f3a-c24591df622sm433233966b.46.2026.08.21.04.26.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 21 Aug 2026 04:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 13:26:57 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" Cc: Ridong Chen , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , David Hildenbrand , Qi Zheng , Shakeel Butt , Kairui Song , Barry Song , Axel Rasmussen , Yuanchu Xie , Wei Xu , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ridong Chen , Roman Gushchin Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] mm/vmscan: honour node reclaim limits per type Message-ID: References: <20260821081741.1340277-1-ridong.chen@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri 21-08-26 12:16:47, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 11:21:31AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 21-08-26 09:58:52, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > > > +cc Roman for suggestion. > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 10:31:06AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > You are explaining what but missing the most important part _Why_ do we > > > > need to have this addressed? Is this just addressing Sashiko review > > > > refernced below? Is there any real usecase where the current behavior > > > > matters? > > > > > > This is exactly the issue with these 'unrelated to your patch but' suggestions > > > from sashiko. > > > > > > You end up in loops: > > > > > > AI generated patch ---------------> AI generated review > > > ^ | > > > | | > > > | v > > > AI generated 'unrelated to your patch but' > > > > > > And _at every stage_ reviewers have to do _additional work_ (with ~50% signal/noise). > > > > > > This isn't sustainable. > > > > > > We already had _too much work_ prior to the slopgeddon. Now we have a multiple > > > of that. > > > > > > Roman - I really think we a way of switching off the 'unrelated to your patch > > > but' stuff per-subsystem would be useful. > > > > > > Maybe we could figure out a way of funnelling this stuff somewhere separately > > > longer term. > > > > > > (I have I think 2 slopped fixes to rewrite after the previous what like 7 or 8 > > > this cycle? So forgive the grumpiness :) > > > > I wouldn't blame Sashiko on this really. Yes it points to a theoretical > > problem. That is fine. But we should encourage people to not blindly > > I mean it's not only this case, it's a pattern I've been observing for a > while. Yes, I know. > > follow that lead and immediately jump at fixing something that is not a > > real problem. Quite honestly I even haven't looked into patches until it > > is clear that the usecase is sound. We should enforce this more and > > leave patches lingering if they are not sufficiently justified. > > Yes this is a needed change in mm, but until we fully transition workflow > any patch might still land. > > And I still find those kinds of suggestions deeply problematic for reviewer > workload. > > If you had a person repeatedly say 'hey unrelated to this series but...' > you'd very quickly ask them to stop and if they persisted, >/dev/null them. > > I get that passive passes are too expensive and it's not that much more > work to have sashiko point this stuff out, but it's not that much more work > for _it_, it's substantially increasing workload for reviewers. > > As I said on a recent call - it's fine as long as you don't care about > reviewer/maintainer burnout. > > But I do so :) Hey, do not get me wrong. I very much care about reviewers as well. I merely wanted to say that we've had peaks of tool driven patches no matter what. Things have eventually normalized but people need to be educated about expectations of maintainers. Sashiko suggesting "but this might need attention as well..." certainly contribute to more noise but keep in mind that AI driven people are going to find a tool of their choice to arm them with ideas to implement and post so focusing on Sashiko is not going to help all that much. My main message is to establish and enforce a notion that patches are going to be ignored if they are not justified properly (even if they might seem technically correct or fixing a theoretical problem). -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs